Why the study?
What are the gender differences in metabolic risk factors associated with prehypertension in Chinese adults?
What are the gender differences in metabolic risk factors associated with prehypertension in Chinese adults?
Metabolic risk factors for prehypertension show significant gender differences, highlighting the need for gender-specific prevention strategies.
Gender-stratified metabolic screening may aid prehypertension evaluation; leaves open whether targeted interventions alter progression.
INTRODUCTION: Prehypertension is highly prevalent. However, very few studies have evaluated the association of various metabolic risk factors in those with prehypertension and, more importantly, possible differences based on gender. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data of clinical characteristics were collected from 3891 subjects. Risk factors were analyzed by multiple logistic regression analysis. The areas under receiver operating characteristic curves were compared to assess the discriminatory value of metabolic parameters for predicting prehypertension. RESULTS: The incidence of prehypertension was 55.9% (66.9% of men, 41.1% of women). Prehypertensives showed clusters of metabolic associations including changes in the levels of plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (OR = 1.550), triglycerides (OR = 1.141) and fasting blood glucose (OR = 1.320) after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index and smoking. The metabolic associations also showed differences based on gender. For instance, higher total cholesterol (OR = 1.602) was the most evident risk factor in men with prehypertension, while higher triglycerides (OR = 1.314) and lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (OR = 1.729) were the main risk factors in women. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that risk associations of prehypertension show gender differences. These results emphasize the importance of health education, active management of blood pressure and timely and effective treatment of abnormal lipid profile in subjects with prehypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: